How to Turn Your Son into an Sexual Basket Case

All right, so we’re all agreed that we don’t want our sons to grow up to be like Robin Thicke. But the Thicke school of sex ed is not the only place where boys get a distorted, damaging education about sexuality; and girls are not the only ones being shamed.

The author of What My 1o-Year-Old Son Knows about Rape So Far lives near a college campus, and she and her son often see shirtless boys acting macho and girls acting flirty. Her son has questions about why the boys and girls act and dress the way they do, and, she says “he spends quite a bit of time wondering about himself in eight years.”

So she responds by telling him that, sometimes, the shirtless boys he sees get drunk and rape girls, and that someday he will get drunk, and when he does, he better stop himself before he rapes anyone, or she will disown him.

Here a few circumstances under which her approach would be correct:

--If her son has already tried to rape someone;
--if her son is a sociopath who doesn’t care whether he’s hurting people, and needs to be scared into submission;
--if her son is so developmentally disabled that he can’t tell when he’s hurting people, and needs to be scared into submission.

Her son is not like that, though. What she says about her son is that "he’s trying his best to figure out a few things about relationships and sexuality," and "he’s confused."

He’s ten. He knows almost nothing about girls, and hardly anything more about himself. He barely understands, from the way she describes it, the mechanisms of sex. But one of the first lessons she teaches him about his body is:

"Let’s be honest: the penis does what it does, and whether the sex is consensual or not, that penis is engaged in an action that is pretty consistent whether it’s a happy experience or a horrible experience."

Her intention, I suppose, is to drive home the point that consent is paramount. But the effect, I guarantee you, will be to make her son feel guilty about having a penis -- and to have guilt and excitement forever twined together in his heart and imagination.

I hope, for the sake of her son, that she’s exaggerating, and misrepresenting the way she really speaks to him. But there’s this:

"I’ve made him repeat after me: I will never force myself upon a woman or a man. It simply isn’t a choice. I’ve gone so far as to tell him that if he rapes somebody, he’ll have to find a new family in prison and that he won’t get to hang out with us anymore. That almost made him cry."

She threatened her ten-year-old son with having to “find a new family” if he does what she seems to imagine that he will almost certainly do if his mother (his mother. Where is the dad in all of this? She says she's married. Why is he not the one having these conversations?) doesn’t drum into his head that boys are super rapey, and he damn well better tamp that inherent rapiness down.

This is abuse.

She says, “I know that one day, he’ll unwrap it all and make it his own in a healthy way.”

No, my friend, he won’t. One day, he’ll realize that the reason all his relationships crash and burn is that his own mother tried to make him feel guilty for being born a boy.

If we believe that girls should not be shamed, then we owe the same care to boys. If we teach girls to respect their bodies and to expect to be respected, then we owe the same lesson to boys. We don’t teach girls about sexuality by saying, “Let’s be honest, vaginas have a way of forcing boys into fatherhood whether it’s consensual or not, so you better keep it to yourself, or you better find a new family in the home for unwed mothers, because you won’t get to hang around us anymore.” So, why, oh why, would you say that to your son?

Most boys are physically stronger than most girls. Boys are usually the ones who rape, not girls. I get it. Boys do need to be told that they must not use that strength to abuse other people.

But boys have just as strong a need as girls to hear from their parents that their sexuality is something good, something powerful, a gift given to them from God. Making a ten-year-old boy chant, “I promise mommy I’ll never rape”? Not gonna send that message.

My prediction? The first time this kid has anything approaching a sexual experience, no matter how consensual on the woman’s part, he’s going to fall apart, because his idea of sexuality is a big, knotted ball of guilt and fear and shame. Or even before that: something totally innocent will happen – say, he’ll be leaning over to get a drink at the water fountain, and will accidentally drool on the girl standing next to it -- and, being a ten-year-old boy, he will be so confused that he’ll be convinced he somehow accidentally raped her, and his mother won’t love him anymore, and he should run away from home.

I used the phrase “basket case” deliberately. It originally meant a soldier who’d lost his arms and legs, and had to be carried around in a basket. With his appendages blown off, he was powerless, considered useless.

This is what this woman is doing to her son: turning him, emotionally, into a sexual amputee. You want to shame someone? Shame on her.

These people are not comfortable with how God made them. Please move on.

Posted by Tony on Sunday, Sep 15, 2013 4:23 PM (EST):

Much of this has to do with the idea that sexual activity no longer necessarily brings with it the responsibility of caring for and raising a child. Birth control is used as an excuse for young people to fool around. That and an uncensored, unregulated media is poisoning and corrupting young minds with overly sexualized imagery and debased subject matter everywhere. The wolf is no longer at the door culturally, he’s gotten in and is ravaging young men’s minds - and souls. It’s unclear what the solution is, because Pandora’s Box has been opened. Children’s access to filth in all forms of media needs to be better restricted. We have the technology, unfortunately, we don’t have the widespread will to do something about it - yet.

Posted by James on Sunday, Sep 15, 2013 7:29 AM (EST):

“One college (U of Delaware, I think) was teaching two things in Freshman Orientation: 1. All white people are racists. 2. It is impossible for a person of color to be a racist. No one seems to have noticed that BOTH statements are racists and stereotyping.”

What they have done is changed the definition of racist. Instead of racist meaning a belief in the superiority of of one race over another, the new meaning of “racist” is one who supports racial privilege in society. Since in the United States, white people have racial privilege, all white people are “racists” for taking advantage of it, while people of color do not have racial privilege and, therefore, cannot be “racists”.

This manipulation of language serves a purpose. No longer can a white person not be racist by simply thinking of persons of color as equals and treating them as so. Instead, one must work against racial privilege.

And how does one do that? Just do exactly what they tell us to do…

Manipulation of language always serves a purpose. The key is to find out whose purpose it serves.

Posted by James on Sunday, Sep 15, 2013 7:19 AM (EST):

“BTW, did you know that a significantly higher number of pedophile abuse cases happened in the L.A. archdiocese *before* Vatican II? Telling, isn’t it?”

Not surprised at all. I think V2 brought lot of problems that had been swept under the rug to the surface. But the problems were there long before the council.

I’m actually rather fond of mid-century modern architecture. The better designed buildings are very bright and open. My point is that the “sterile church” was not a product of the council and showed a pre-existing problem. I see the 1970s and 1980s as more an era of confusion than dissent.

I’m not a member of Fr. L’s parish. We were just visiting. It’s within driving distance of where we live, but if we tried to join, he’d probably send us back home. He’s not a fan of church shopping.

Posted by Jane on Sunday, Sep 15, 2013 1:43 AM (EST):

I was in a Catholic girls’ high school in the 60’s before Vatican II and what we were told was we were the daughters of the King and should always behave as the daughter of the King should behave. We were told that we should lift boys up to our level by our example. We were told about proximate occasions of sin and why we should avoid them: they could lead to actual occasions of sin.

There was no in your face sexual intercourse on TV or at the cinema or in any books I read. The culture wasn’t as sex saturated as it is today. Boys could be friends with boys and girls could be friends with girls without anyone being called gay or lesbian. Girls didn’t show off their breasts every time they walked out in public. As far as I am aware there was no drug culture and certainly no binge drinking especially by girls. If I went out with my girlfriends we finished the meal or picture at a coffee shop.

I lived in a capital city in Australia.

Posted by Dixibehr on Saturday, Sep 14, 2013 9:47 PM (EST):

Regarding the “all men are rapists” attitude.

One college (U of Delaware, I think) was teaching two things in Freshman Orientation: 1. All white people are racists. 2. It is impossible for a person of color to be a racist. No one seems to have noticed that BOTH statements are racists and stereotyping.

Posted by Monica on Saturday, Sep 14, 2013 3:32 PM (EST):

@Tom Simon
“Anyone who says that all men are rapists is, ipso facto, a misandrist false-accuser. When anyone teaches kids that this is the normal and normative standard of society as a whole, they are indeed teaching that women are misandrist false-accusers as a matter of course.”

Well, yes and no. If the children actually learned what they were being taught, they’d just learn that all men are rapists. To derive that all women are misandrist false-accusers, they’d have to (a) know that not all men are rapists—and God help them if they don’t know that—and (b) believe that the view that all men are rapists is a view held by all women. I see your point, but I think TS is being a little hasty to make generalizations about women. Most of us are sane, I swear! :P

Posted by Lisa Twaronite on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 8:37 PM (EST):

Let me just jump in on Andrea Dworkin, since I’m a fellow “radical” feminist. She was a very complex person (and I don’t necessarily agree with everything I’ve read by her, not do I claim to be an expert on her). She was indeed twice married, miserably the first time, but quite happily the second time. She was a survivor of great trauma, and is best known for her campaigns against violence against women. She was avidly anti-pornography. She did have some strange notions about sexual intercourse, but never stated “all sex is rape” in those exact words. She did once write, “I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.” And she was indeed overweight, particularly toward the end of her life, but I don’t see why that would disqualify someone from being able to comment on sex. We fat people have sex, too.

Posted by Momster on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 2:28 PM (EST):

@James, I love classical beauty. There was a time in my life when I didn’t like modern architecture at all and most definitely not in churches. I dislike it when they tuck the tabernacle away, or when the priest likes to customize the sacred words of the liturgy. As I’ve gotten older my tastes have broadened. I love light and space in churches if it inspires the lofty and eternal. I think the San Francisco Cathedral which is very modern does a good job of this. My Dad would roll his eyes at me if I told him that, with a look of: “where did I go wrong?” When I was a teen, I remember his friends snarking with him about what Pope JPII was wearing on what I think was his first trip back to Poland. They thought his vestments (with modern designs on their classical form) were beneath his dignity. Maybe that was the first time a little indignation for the ultra traditionalists was born in my gizzard. I was so moved by the Pope’s momentous and historical return to Poland as the vicar of Christ, and was so moved by the outpouring of love by his people, that I couldn’t understand why they noticed or cared. Some of these friends of his were, or are convinced that Vatican II was like a wrecking ball in history. You’re right when you say that there was a lot of confusion, and I was confused about this for years. Now I’m convinced that the cloud of confusion was from the dissidents and so called progressives that rallied together to take reins that weren’t theirs to take. These people literally gave momentum to that wrecking ball that was wreaking havoc in society *already*, only, to add insult to injury they did their dirty work in our Holy Mother Church. When Pope John the 23rd flung those proverbial windows open to the fresh air of the Holy Spirit, they used the predictable confusion that comes with any change to promote their abusive agenda.
.
*Now* I realize that Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit, and not the smoke of Satan that many a traditionalist would like to insinuate.
.
BTW, did you know that a significantly higher number of pedophile abuse cases happened in the L.A. archdiocese *before* Vatican II? Telling, isn’t it?
.
Cheers to all of you in Fr. L.‘s parish! I read his blog often and think he is a great, and holy priest. If we didn’t have some really good holy priests here I’d be tempted to a little jealousy.

Posted by Dixibehr on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 11:49 AM (EST):

TRS, “All sex is rape” is attributed to Andrea Dworkin. She was a radical feminist, bigger and fatter than I am, and was twice married—not very happily, as you can probably guess. So consider the source.

Posted by TRS on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 11:33 AM (EST):

Tom Simon - “Was bombarded as a kid with messages like ‘all sex is rape’ ”
.
Dear heavens, where were you brought up?
Who perpetrated that message?
.
I’m ever more grateful for my upbringing.

Posted by Amy Joy on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 7:37 AM (EST):

Oh my God… I couldn’t read past the quote about disowning him…In tears here..how could a mother ever…I cannot even get there. I have sons. I want to protect her son —from her.

Posted by Jaimito on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 6:18 AM (EST):

That the author bragged in public media about telling her son these things makes it all the more shocking.

Posted by Claire S on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 4:52 AM (EST):

Well said, Sheila. A child who is brought up to respect boundaries and to have empathy for others is going to know that rape is immoral and can be trusted without having the mother feeling the need to warn and threaten the way this mother did.

Posted by Tom Simon on Friday, Sep 13, 2013 3:32 AM (EST):

@Monica,

‘If your school taught you that all men are rapists, why did you have so much trouble trusting her? You seem to have learned instead that all women are misanthropic false-accusers.’

Anyone who says that all men are rapists is, ipso facto, a misandrist false-accuser. When anyone teaches kids that this is the normal and normative standard of society as a whole, they are indeed teaching that women are misandrist false-accusers as a matter of course.
I went through this myself: was in my teens in the early 1980s, at the height of the Catherine McKinnon–Andrea Dworkin misandrist hysteria. Was bombarded as a kid with messages like ‘all sex is rape’ and ‘if women ruled the world there would be no war’. I was actively taught that being male and heterosexual was something to be ashamed of, and I am suffering from that shame to this day.
Of course, the people who made up these rules did not even attempt to live by them. So the real lesson I learned from all this was that people in authority can be expected to be shameless hypocrites. Rules (I mean manmade ones) are not for obeying; they are merely a convenient stick that the people in power can beat their enemies with.

Posted by Leah on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 11:27 PM (EST):

Parents seem to have more problems with their children “growing up” than the children, and are adding to the confusion children have when their bodies are changing. If only it was like caterpillars sheltering themselves with a cocoon so they can change into adult butterflies, with the same instinctive intent to reproduce before they die.
.
Of course, we can’t just let our kids leave home and be responsible on their own, but to make them ashamed of themselves instead of understanding that they are experiencing a metamorphoses that is in accordance with God’s will is damaging.

Posted by Sheila on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 8:38 PM (EST):

Oh dear. “No-rape ed” in our family is, “If you don’t want to be touched, say ‘please don’t touch me.’ If someone asks not to be touched, you’re not allowed to touch them.’” This is at three! But since kids listen to our actions, not our words, that’s where the real lesson is. If I’m tickling and they shriek “no!” I stop instantly. Usually I get, “Tickle me some more!” and then I happily go back to tickling. If I want a hug or kiss, I ask for one, and if they say no, I say “okay, maybe later.”
.
A person who learns to respect these boundaries from childhood is not going to need a conversation about how they are bound to be rapists.
.
But if this conversation needs to be had, it should happen with the girls too. As someone above mentioned, girls can be aggressive, and part of the reason is that they are told that boys always, 100% of the time, want that. Sometimes it happens in a concern that a fan runs on stage and kisses or gropes a male singer ... and that’s glossed right over, as if that’s okay. Kids learn that. Girls learn that this behavior is okay, and boys learn that they’re not supposed to complain if it happens to them. I was told just today by a CATHOLIC man that a teenage boy who sleeps with his teacher isn’t a victim of statutory rape—he just got lucky.
.
Ted Seeber, you do what works for you, your wife, and your relationship. But the rest of us will follow the extensive Catholic teaching about sex for procreation AND unity, not limited to any specific time. Obviously one’s concern should be about one’s spouse before oneself, but ideally both should enjoy it, right? At the same time, I don’t know you or your life story, why you have so much trouble trusting or how your wife feels about it, so I recommend you talk to a good spiritual director, confessor, or friend if you are still worried about it.

Posted by James on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 3:15 PM (EST):

@anna lisa: Born 1980. Gen-X Catholics grew up in a time of chaos in the Church. It looks like the chaos is largely over.

I recently had the privilege of visiting Our Lady of the Rosary in Greenville, SC. (Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s parish, if you are familiar with his blog.) The parish church building gives an architectural history of the Catholic Church since its construction in 1955.

The original building was the first suburban parish in Greenville, on the outskirts of town. The building was designed for the old pre-Vatican II mass, but it was a functional, sterile space. The architecture was mid-century modern, with cinderblock walls and narrow windows. The balcony was glassed off as a cry room.

In the 1980s or so, it was “renovated”. The orientation was turned 90 degrees to make a “church in the round” form.

More recently, the church seems to have gotten some improvements recently. The altar area is more prominent and classically Catholic paintings, statues, and carved stations of the cross decorate the walls. But not too much has been put into it—the parish is planning on building a new church building in a traditional Romanesque style and it is clear that they have no intention on putting any money into anything that can’t be moved over.

The takeaway: The Church had already gotten away from its roots before Vatican II. As a result, the council brought a lot of confusion. Now, the confusion is gone, but we still have to live with the consequences of the last 60 years.

Posted by anna lisa on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 11:44 AM (EST):

Thanks :):) I wrote it because I grew up in a particularly rough patch in the road for our Church. I would call it growing pains though because I know, as in the case of my father, that he looks back nostalgically at what was, and a lot of the time thinks so much would be solved to go back to the way things were. That’s not going to happen. Perhaps aspects of the past will be restored as we move forward. My own story gives me hope as I raise my kids in a (crazy?) world. God was with me on that rough patch of the road, and He will walk with them also. It’s easy to be rigid with children in the beginning, but that approach has a tiny little ticking time bomb inside of it. I get little signs of encouragement here and there that my new and improved approach is working: When I asked my fifth what his favorite part of camp was, he said “getting up and watching the sunrise” but then added,that the next best thing was “the rosary…I really liked saying the rosary every night.” (!!!) I almost keeled over. I didn’t even know *how* to pray the rosary at 14…

Posted by TRS on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:40 AM (EST):

Anna Lisa… I love that story! (aside from the tragic part) but that’s what makes the ending so beautiful.

Posted by Claire S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 4:28 AM (EST):

Thank you for sharing that Annalisa. Heartbreaking, but I’m so happy that your grandmother found her way home.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:37 PM (EST):

I should add a small but important addendum to what I wrote above. I don’t want to hate on anyone because they weren’t vain enough to be a nun who cared about excessive facial hair- (and I won’t blame Sister Julianna for being hawkish when she was so outnumbered.) - Two months ago, my Dad asked me to go with him to the mission to venerate the relics of St. Anthony of Padua. We went to mass and listened to an Italian priest tell us a little bit about the life of the saint. He told us about the exhumation of the saint’s relics, I think about a decade ago. Scientists could tell by the condition of his bones that he had walked,—a lot. He went from town to town covering hundreds of miles to bring the gospel to thirsty souls. What struck me the most however was what they said about his kneecaps: they were literally altered by the amount of time he spent on his knees.
Moved by the entire evening, on the way home, my father told me about what it was like to be a Catholic in the forties. He remembered most fondly, the nuns that loved him, and that he loved back. He really ,needed this because his parents never went to church. They didn’t feel worthy. Decades later my father learned that his only brother had been aborted in the fifth month during the depression. His parents couldn’t even bring themselves to go to mass on Christmas and Easter. The nuns were like mothers to my father. They were mothers even though he tortured some of them a little. He was one of the few that had braces on his teeth, and he loved to shoot rubber bands at the back of their habits. He also kept a bobby pin in his desk bent at about 45 degrees to make a loud twanging noise at inopportune times. My Dad swore they had mystical eyes in the back of their heads. As my mother would say,“the proof in the pudding…” was that my father conversed with several of those dedicated nuns up until their deaths. He LOVED them, and they loved him back. He was the top math and science scholar at his high school because of their diligence. He is so grateful. I’m SURE that’s a lot of the reason why I’m a grateful daughter of the Church today.
*(My grandmother, otherwise known lovingly as “Gramcracker” died reconciled with the church on her deathbed).

Posted by Jerry on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 7:25 PM (EST):

My, the times, how they are a-changin’.
***
Let me first say I’m gay. I was born that way more than 50 years ago. I even knew back then that I was “different.” Still. Like all other growing boys who didn’t know what sex really was, it started to become an interest when I was around 11 or 12. You can’t stop that from happening. I and my best friend started to learn about it by hiding in his closet and looking at his older brother’s “dirty” magazines. Don’t think the internet today has opened a vast, new world of porn. It was just as avaiable and “vibrant” back then. Kids who wanted to get ahold of it did. We had the pictures, but we didn’t have the “facts.” And that was a good thing. Let me explain.
***
We were very sexually dumb back then. Sex-ed didn’t start until our sophomore year and it was very lame, a 35-mm film about “reproduction” in biology class. None of us really knew how it worked. We all thought that if a male and female did it, the female would get pregnant every time. Really, we did. When the lower-grade high-school gossip line got started that two of our classmates “did it,” we wondered what she would do now that she was “pregnant.” We found out she wasn’t. We figured “he pulled it out” before it “happened.” We considered them lucky. That kept anyone else from “doing it.” It worked. Ironically, out public high school classes, that averaged over 700 a year, had maybe three pregnancies. The local Catholic high school, that averaged less than 100 a year, had at least a dozen pregnancies. The place became a laughing stock. It was called “Slut High.”

Posted by TeaPot562 on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 7:23 PM (EST):

Simcha,
Your posts generate lots of comments, and are often (including the comments) a source of hilarity.
Thank you for writing them.
Now that I’m eighty (BW of 58 years the same age), maybe I should have a talk with our four living children about sex. Of course, we have twelve grandkids, so maybe the subject isn’t a complete mystery to our kids.
I suppose I should ask whether our children (now aged 49 to 56) felt let down that we - their parents - didn’t initiate lengthy discussions on this subject.
Anyway, thanks again for your blogs.
TeaPot562

Posted by missy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 7:09 PM (EST):

I agree completely, Simcha. Very very sad.

Posted by Kathleen Hamilton on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 7:01 PM (EST):

Psychotic thinking. Why is a talk about sexuality with a child made difficult? The flirty girls and the shirtless guys have nothing to do with a sexual relationship. The mother has to simply say, they are talking to each other and getting to know one another. They are establishing a relationship which could lead to being serious enough to for them to enter marriage one day. That’s it.All that other talk is just psychotic and disturbing.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 5:33 PM (EST):

Ted, You are really missing out on a tremendous gift God wants to give you. Counseling from a really good priest, some prayer and reading up on T.O.B. could clear the way for that gift. Hurry up! You’ll be kicking yourself for not getting with the program sooner!

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 5:22 PM (EST):

Corita, he married the woman, and got the boot. Things have gotten better in Catholic schools since I was there. I think my generation got to push up from rock bottom.

Posted by Claire S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 5:08 PM (EST):

Wow Theodore, you really have issues with women. Just because men don’t have the right to rape, doesn’t mean that their sexual needs take a backseat to women’s needs. The sexual revolution was a great benefit to selfish men. It allows them to enjoy recreational sex (due to contraception) without the responsibilities of fatherhood, for example. It allows them to treat women like objects rather than developing a loving, committed relationship with them.

Posted by Mr. X on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:52 PM (EST):

“I am saying that the man’s needs/wants needs to take a back seat to the woman’s, entirely, in the post-sexual-revolution world.”

By the way, being giving is a pretty great way to enjoy unitive, joyful, and holy sex.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:50 PM (EST):

I am saying that the man’s needs/wants needs to take a back seat to the woman’s, entirely, in the post-sexual-revolution world. If you’re doing sex only for your own enjoyment, Mr. X, you are most certainly doing it wrong.

Posted by Mr. X on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:46 PM (EST):

Ted, if sex isn’t fun, you’re doing it wrong.

Posted by Claire S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:36 PM (EST):

Sorry, that should have been “unity” rather than “unification”.

Posted by Claire S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:33 PM (EST):

Yes, sex is for procreation as well as unification. Meaning that a married couple is not morally limited to reserving the marital act for a time when a conception is likely to occur.

Posted by rachel on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:31 PM (EST):

Theodore, that isn’t what the Church teaches. Sure, sex must be procreative/unitive within marriage but not every time a couple has sex should it only be during a woman’s fertile period. No where is that in Catholic teaching. Some couples struggle with infertility. Are you saying they should refrain completely from sex since there is very little possibility the woman could get pregnant?

Posted by Claire S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:29 PM (EST):

So every Catholic divorce is automatically proof that men have no power?

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:28 PM (EST):

So the sexual revolution never happened, Corita? There hasn’t been a divorce of gender from sex, and sex from procreation?

I agree with the Church that these things are wrong. But as long as they exist, any person having sex for enjoyment’s sake alone is opening themselves up to a good deal of natural risk. There is a reason why the taboos were the way they were before the sexual revolution.

Sex is for procreation and unification, not recreation.

Posted by Corita on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:26 PM (EST):

annalisa: As a Catholic h.s. teacher I had a colleague (whom I once considered a friend but whose appalling behavior lost him that) who turned out to be a former priest from CA; after being fired from teaching he went back to it as a rent-a in a “Catholic” church…. but I think the ages would not match up. Oh, well. It must have been a phenomenon of the times.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:24 PM (EST):

@Theodore Seeber,

By “rigorously proven” I meant rigorous proof that [whatever happened] was moral, not proof that [what one party claims happened] was moral. We can’t have the first kind of rigorous proof, because it would have to rest on eyewitness testimony, which you apparently don’t accept. Actions can be proven to be moral, sure, but you can’t rigorously prove that those are the actions you took. Thankfully, this country’s judicial standards are not those of theoretical math, or every rapist would walk free.

“I come from the generation that were taught in public school that all men are rapists. [...I]t took me until I was 30 to overcome the lies enough to even trust that much.”
If your school taught you that all men are rapists, why did you have so much trouble trusting her? You seem to have learned instead that all women are misanthropic false-accusers.
Obviously not all men are rapists. But a lot of non-rapists (female as well as male, in fact) are complicit in perpetuating rape culture. Your fixation on false accusations, which implicitly denies the validity of actual accusations (which almost all of them are) is part of that, although I’m sure you don’t mean it to.

I’m sorry that you have so many issues with women. But you seem to be defending some bizarre rape-sub-culture, and that’s not okay.

Posted by Corita on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:22 PM (EST):

The Gospel of Ted Seeber, indeed. Ted, you are really going too far.
You are forcing reality to try and fit into your preconceived traumas, then promoting them on the internet.

I think it is time to examine some of your more rigidly-held categories.

Posted by Jake5577 on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:19 PM (EST):

Where is the boy’s father!?

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:07 PM (EST):

I will agree with you that things are a mess, but you’re not going to make it any better by preaching the Gospel of Ted Seeber. People went astray by not following the Church, not from enjoying sex and being good to their wives.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:03 PM (EST):

I’ll agree with that. In addition to Catholic teaching, my views are informed by my own experiences, the laws of the United States, and abuse by feminists like the one you originally quoted.

In the 21st century women are in charge of sex. No man has any power anymore. I’ve seen far too many Catholic marriages end in divorce to believe otherwise.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:01 PM (EST):

Oh TRS, you had to ask…
I guess the craziness in Catholic schools hit the West Coast a little earlier than everywhere else. I never had a single nun, brother, or priest as a regular class teacher. I was born in ‘66. my first real brush with informal sex ed was in the third grade at the house of a little Catholic school mate whose brother had playboy magazines in his room (this was the case at another Catholic friend’s house as well). As for my *formal* education, the closest I got to a Catholic religious was the music teacher, whom we despised and had a shocking amount of facial hair, and the unsmiling principle who looked and behaved like a hawk. My 4th grade teacher was an ex nun from the “old school”, who was as mean as the devil. She broke a yard stick on my friend Ian, and locked him in the closet. She told us that if we broke one of the commandments and died suddenly, we’d go straight to hell. Thanks be to God, none of them were in charge of sex-ed! My fifth grade teacher was kind of a pervy guy who decided to give us some impromptu sex ed with big drawings on the chalk board without parental consent. My brain was in no way prepared for those drawings. I told on him to my Mom (I had a vague idea about what he was talking about, but I couldn’t articulate it so I wrote it down for her) She marched into school like an angry mother tiger, and ended up switching me to another Catholic school, where it didn’t get much better. I had two hippy teachers, the Mormon lady and a very gossipy 8th grade teacher who taught us some “human reproduction” in a very grouchy manner. *(I think it was the fifth or sixth grade that another Catholic friend showed me a really awful book which had ugly cartoons of fat people having sex. My friend’s Mom ended up complaining to my Mom because I told my friend that her parents were big perverts if they “did that”...)
In the seventh grade, we all congregated at the top of the jungle gym in our nice plaid skirts and peter pan collars, where “the new girl” read us a graphic pornographic novel. We hung on every word. Later, we discovered that she had been the victim of incest for years, and took her father to court. In the 8th grade, when I went for my confirmation interview, the priest told me that “God doesn’t love” because love is a human emotion. He was incensed when I refused to believe him, and almost wouldn’t let me be confirmed. Nobody was too surprised when he ran off with some lady. (He ended up becoming a hire-a-priest, presiding over my brother-in-law’s non denominational wedding, on the beach.) The ninth grade got worse. The H.S. P.E. teacher was a lesbian who had an affair with one of the girls whom I was a cheerleader with the year before. She brought in a nurse from PLANNED PARENTHOOD for a sex ed class. I was the only girl who fessed up to what was being taught. My Mom went raging in like a mother tiger again, and the class was stopped. I was delighted because I didn’t have to do P.E. anymore and got an A plus anyhow. The coach didn’t get fired until the lesbian affair came out.
.
My parents fiiiiiiinally let me go to public school at that point. (I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was the history teacher who smoked weed with the stoners.)
.
I learned the faith from my parents, going to mass every Sunday and then really beefed it up on my own initiative with a few box-loads of books before and after attending a Protestant college.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:53 PM (EST):

I’m not trying to embarrass you. I’m just trying to make sure any readers understand that your views are based on your own experience, and are not a reflection of Catholic teaching.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:50 PM (EST):

You’ve been out of school for a while, though. Time to stop blaming what you learned, and start learning about what’s right in front of you.
.
“Celibacy or procreative marriage (abstinent except when the woman is fertile and children are wished for) are the ONLY reasonable options.”
Sure, as long as it’s “make up your own religion” day, and you and your wife have unusually low sex drives. Otherwise, this is a dumb idea. My husband and I don’t misconstrue each other. We talk about stuff, and we care about each other. That pretty much takes care of it, and nobody has to get arrested or anything.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:45 PM (EST):

I’m fixated on it because I come from the generation that were taught in public school that all men are rapists.

I am married, with a special needs child, and have been praying for another one with my wife for 10 years. I trust her to stay with me. But it took me until I was 30 to overcome the lies enough to even trust that much.

Celibacy or procreative marriage (abstinent except when the woman is fertile and children are wished for) are the ONLY reasonable options. Anything else can be misconstrued far too easily. And there is enough misanthropy in the feminist movement to choke a horse.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:39 PM (EST):

I’m a disciple of Andrea Dworkin because I said men shouldn’t be forcing their unwilling wives into sex? Listen, between this and your statement that parents who take good care of their kids will be too tired to have sex for years at a time, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that, for your own sake, you shouldn’t be talking about sex in public.

.

It’s true that awful women sometimes lie, and say they were forced when they weren’t. I guess if you’re so fearful about this, your only recourse is to be celibate. I can’t begin to understand why you’re fixated on this point.

Posted by James on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:38 PM (EST):

@Theodore Seeber: I hope you are trolling, or if not, that you are unmarried.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:31 PM (EST):

Ok, Simcha, gotcha- you’re a disciple of Andrea Dworkin.

It still means that consent can’t be counted on, no matter how it is given- and is thus worthless. There is nothing to keep any woman from deciding, years after the fact, that an act of sex was rape.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:24 PM (EST):

@Theodore Seeber: But of course marriage does not give one the right to unlimited sex on demand. I know at least two women who were raped—and I mean with physical force—by their Catholic husbands. The men reasoned that marriage = consent, period. So it’s worth reiterating what others have said: we need to teach boys that real men don’t force weaker people into anything.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:16 PM (EST):

If you are talking about not being charged with immoral behavior, then yes, ONLY actions that can be proven after the fact to be moral, are moral.

As for the proper way to get consent for sexual activity- marriage of course. There is good reason for the tradition of having small children involved in the wedding in such a way that they will remember- it is a matter of having witnesses that will outlive the participants in the marriage.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:13 PM (EST):

@Theodore Seeber
“Verbal consent is worthless. There is no proof that it ever happened.”

So are you saying the only moral actions are those that can, after the fact, be rigorously proven to have been moral? Because that excludes, oh, almost every human activity.

If verbal consent is worthless, how is one supposed to obtain consent for sexual activity?

Posted by Michael on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:58 PM (EST):

Wow. How about saying that sexuality, our sex organs, our dignity are a gift from God that, used in the proper context of marriage, can be utilized in a beautiful way that respects us as humans made in the image of God and that sex, in its proper place, allows us to act in cooperation with God? She should have said this and followed up with, “rape, on the other hand, is a mortal sin and an abhorrent violation of the victim’s dignity and a crime against God that cries out to Heaven.”

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:43 PM (EST):

Verbal consent is worthless. There is no proof that it ever happened.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:41 PM (EST):

@James,
Oh okay, sorry! I guess I wasn’t reading carefully enough.

Posted by James on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:38 PM (EST):

@Monica:

“Friend, acquaintance, or family member” and “serial predator” are NOT mutually exclusive. Nor does “serial predator” imply “stranger”.

Alcohol-facilitated rapes are common. But its the victim, not the rapist, who is drunk. The “one drunken mistake” is what is rare. Sorry if that was unclear.

Posted by bf on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:08 PM (EST):

Maybe be more charitable. No shame should be put on anyone in so far as we are all made in the image of God. At most you can say this is not a good approach. The best approach would be the guidance of Theology of the Body for teens

Posted by RichardGTC on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:49 PM (EST):

“I used the phrase “basket case” deliberately. It originally meant a soldier who’d lost his arms and legs, and had to be carried around in a basket.”—that is neat. I never heard that before. Do you know what a panda car is? If you don’t, I bet you can figure it out. I agree with everything in this post, except the predictions. It is like that movie, The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-In-The-Moon-Marigolds, you can’t tell for sure how people will turn out. Of course, that was only a movie.

Posted by Kate on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:49 PM (EST):

It would be easier, healthier, more age appropriate, and probably more effective, just to look for opportunities to teach her son that it’s easy to get confused about what other people want from us, and that we should make sure to listen and take people at their word rather than making assumptions about what they want or feel.

The middle-school level example is tickling, since that’s another physical interaction which can produce seemingly contradictory messages (and because tickling girls is probably one of those flirting behaviours he’s noticed and will probably try someday). Most of us don’t mind a little tickling (just like that college girl might enjoy making out a bit at a party). But we want to be listened to when we feel like a line is being crossed and the touching has become unwanted…even if our physical response seems to contradict us.

If you want to raise men and women that are aware that they are capable of overstepping someone else’s bodily autonomy, and are accordingly careful and respectful of other people’s bodies, it’s just easier to start by teaching them to stop tickling someone who gasps out an objection, not to grab and kiss the cute toddler sibling who is busy and doesn’t want to be cuddled, not to carry around the cat that doesn’t like being picked up, and not to punch his brother in the arm as a greeting unless he’s checked that his brother thinks it’s cool too.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:34 PM (EST):

Posted by Ed:
“I’m a 56 year old cradle Catholic who was always taught to honor and respect women because they are mothers(future and present).”
That doesn’t really cut it. Respect women because we’re human beings.

Posted by James: ‘As for the article, what I have noticed is that many feminists bloggers and writers have an obsession with rape. [...] Most rapists are serial offenders with multiple victims. “Drunken rapists” are extremely rare.’
That’s actually the opposite of what statistics (from the FBI, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and National Institute of Justice) say. “Stranger rape” is relatively rare, and most rapes are committed by a friend, acquaintance, or family member of the victim—often her significant other. On college campuses, almost all rapes or drug- or (most often) alcohol-facilitated.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:28 PM (EST):

@Dixibehr:
I was incredibly suspicious about this too, especially when it was presented to me in the future indicative. I wrote to One in Four, Inc. (yes, that’s a thing) about it it, and their president explained it.

That number is based on the National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study, which was funded by the NIJ and run in 1997, surveying 4,446 women who attended 2- or 4-year colleges in fall ‘96.
The main thing about the “one in four” statistic that gets glossed over is that it’s talking about sexual victimization that occurred during *and* before college.

So yes, it is a scarily high number, but it’s not saying that one in four women experienced attempted or completed rape *in college*, which was the impression we were given in College HAS Issues. That being said, the NCWSVS asked uncomfortably specific questions to differentiate amateurish attempts at seduction from attempted rape, and that number doesn’t include other forms of sexual assault.

Interestingly, the SVCW report compared the NCWSCS data to the data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the same year and found that the NCVS’s numbers were significantly lower—“Compared with the NCVS screen questions employed in the comparison component, the use of graphically worded screen questions in NCWSV likely prompted more women who had experienced a sexual victimization to report this fact to the interviewer.”

However, all of that data is fairly old. The Female Victims of Sexual Violence report from 2013 (comparing NCVS data between years) said that “From 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations declined 58%.” So even if the NCVS estimate is low, it’s also going down compared to itself.

Posted by Dixibehr on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:08 PM (EST):

\\One in four women experience attempted or completed rape before they graduate college.\\ That’s a bit on the high side, isn’t it? Is a bungled pass, amateurish attempt at seduction, or otherwise unwanted advance the same as “attempted rape?” I don’t think so.

Posted by Monica on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:51 AM (EST):

“[O]ur 10-year-old got schooled on what happens on college campuses, right here on our own campus, in these spaces that we’re walking past that look happy and friendly. He now knows that these spaces turn ugly sometimes. [... H]is awakening sexuality is, in fact, linked to the act of rape. [...] I’ve made him repeat after me: I will never force myself upon a woman or a man.”

This seems like the flipside of the sexual assault prevention talk I got last year as a freshman: One in four women experience attempted or completed rape before they graduate college. Make sure it doesn’t happen to you and your friends. Men, keep your rapist selves and friends in check!

She does seem to have touched on rape culture, at least a little, but her piece still reads like, at best, an incredibly deprived notion of sexuality.

If you present rape as something that “happens,” then telling women how to avoid it becomes, by implication, telling them how to make sure it happens to someone else. Telling men not to rape becomes telling them how to make sure it’s done by someone else. You’re giving up on ever solving the problem before you properly start trying. :(

Posted by James on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:38 AM (EST):

As for the article, what I have noticed is that many feminists bloggers and writers have an obsession with rape. The ideology is that all that is male is aggressive and brutal and that men need to be “reformed” by being taught how not to rape.

So this is what this woman is doing. She assumes her son is naturally inclined to be a rapist because he is male, so she is teaching him how not to rape. While sexual assault is depressingly common, rapists make up a small percentage of the male population. Most rapists are serial offenders with multiple victims. “Drunken rapists” are extremely rare.

This kind of feminism is really an ideology of misandry. They see Catholic teaching as anti-woman because the Catholic Church believes that men are human and expects them to act that way. They see contraception as necessary and NFP as anti-woman because they truly don’t believe that men can control themselves.

I feel sorry for that poor child.

Posted by Ed on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:29 AM (EST):

What a messed-up way to raise a son. She approaches male/female relationships from the negative perspective of rape. I’m a 56 year old cradle Catholic who was always taught to honor and respect women because they are mothers(future and present). It was a given that men do NOT rape women!

Posted by James on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:19 AM (EST):

Other than a vague “wait until marriage”, sexual issues were pretty much “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Age 33.

I didn’t get any exposure to Catholic sexual shaming until NFP classes. We were both horrified. Fortunately, Couple-to-Couple-League is NOT the magisterium of the Catholic Church (and are under new management).

Posted by James on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:10 AM (EST):

@Bob, @Melanie, @TRS:

I think Catholic instruction varied WIDELY in the 1970s and 1980s. Our nuns were all feminists and our priest was gay. Other parishes were practically Jansenist. YMMV.

All part of the chaos that was the post-Vatican II era.

Posted by rmw on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:01 AM (EST):

@Momster - Your son’s story sounds much like the conversations I’ve had with my own sons (and daughters) as they reflect and share on what they see at college and out with friends.
-
While they’ve got a great group of friends they hang out with, dance with and enjoy they worry about who they might someday marry. Worse yet, if it is this tough for them how hard will it be for their younger siblings!

Posted by TRS on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:34 AM (EST):

@ Bob and Melanie.
Perhaps my recollection is shaded, but I had 12 years of Catholic Schooling, and I recall the discussions on Sex and the commandments were of the, Wait until marriage, and Understand Your Limits variety.
.
Specifically, we were told, if you wouldn’t want your parents to see you do it - remember God sees everything. Oddly, for me that was enough.
.
However, these discussions were in religion class - and coed. We were never separated for these lessons.
I wonder if that was more traumatic for the boys?
.
I remember one boy speaking up and saying (I think in Junior Year) that this discussion was too late, that they needed to teach this to the Freshmen, not Juniors who had already had a taste! (Yes, this was in Catholic School!)
I remember thinking… just because you’ve done it, doesn’t mean you have to keep doing it!
Naive maybe, but that has always worked for me.
.

I’m interested what other Catholics were taught or traumatized about sexuality in school or CCD.
IF you respond, include what era you were taught in or your age range now.

Posted by billy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 9:47 AM (EST):

re: Bob’s comment. So, if the nuns were passing along the church’s teachings THEN, who’s to say that what they’re teaching TODAY is correct? Why should we believe their current teachings?

Posted by Claire S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 9:24 AM (EST):

What a sicko. She seems to think that it’s inevitable that pretty much any male is going to be very likely to rape at some point in the future. There are ways of teaching boys about respect and boundaries without communicating the fear that they have a tendency toward rape.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 6:52 AM (EST):

Good grief—how hard is it to explain “Young Adult Flirting” to a kid? My big 3 have asked about it (9,7, 5, two girls and a boy) and I just told them “At that age a lot of people are ready to get married. So they flirt and date and tease and giggle because they’re trying to talk to lots of different people and find someone to marry.”

That made sense to the kids. I mean, they assume that they’ll either go into religious life or get married (I’ve tried to explain the single life to them, but they insist that all those people just haven’t found the right person yet) and they know that people find spouses in college.

Good grief. If trying to impress girls makes boys “drunken rapists”... then….we might as well put all of them in prison starting in 5th or 6th grade. That would cut down on the fart jokes…......

Posted by Emily on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 8:30 PM (EST):

vomit. I cannot imagine. Thank God for the light of truth about the goodness of human sexuality that we can teach our children through the Church. This- this is just awful. What a violation of his innocence. I couldn’t bring myself to read the actual article, but it sounds like he is a sweet kid and saying these things to him is at best stupid, and worse, abuse.

Posted by Lydia on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 8:16 PM (EST):

This: “If we believe that girls should not be shamed, then we owe the same care to boys. If we teach girls to respect their bodies and to expect to be respected, then we owe the same lesson to boys.”

This has been bouncing around in my head in the weeks since Miley, in the wake of the FYI posts, etc. It seems to me that we tell girls that they are “worth more,” but we don’t say the same to boys. We tell boys that girls should be respected, but don’t tell our daughters the same about boys! All people should be treated with dignity. And there’s no shame in that.

www.smalltownsimplicity.blogspot.com

Posted by Rosemarie Kury on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 5:21 PM (EST):

This is very disturbing because some serial killers were brought up this way. Not that this boy is going to be one, but I hope he gets some counseling. As for his mother,she sounds as if something also had traumatized her too, and she’s passing this on to her son. Again, where is the father? She should leave sex alone at this point unless he begins asking questions. If his dad can’t handle it, there should be some Catholic books around that may be targeted for his age, or possibly a CCD teacher. Hope he doesn’t begin discussing this with his peers though. Alcohol and drugs are more important to talk about to a ten year old boy.

I grew up in the fifties and early sixties. I do remember that going steady meant you were suspended from school, but don’t remember the nuns emphasizing much, but our annual retreats did. The priests were right on as to dressing modestly and avoiding any sexual activity. For a long time, thought kissing could make you pregnant, but I think that was from my peers.

Posted by Cynthia on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 4:55 PM (EST):

That’s very disturbing. My husband and I have always taught our Son to honor women, to never hit his sisters, to never embarrass his classmates and to use his strength (he’s very big for his age) to help and protect others. He once asked what a rapist was (having overheard it on the news I think) I told him it was someone who kept hurting someone and touching them even when they yelled stop. His innocent answer was “That’s not nice, especially if you are bigger than them and they can’t make you stop” I have never threatened to disown him, never chastised him for his maleness but never missed a teachable moment about respect and dignity. Shame on that author for taking an honest searching question (which reveals to me, the little guy found something amiss in the college kids behavior) and throttling him.

Posted by Momster on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 4:50 PM (EST):

This is somewhat off topic, but after reading for the past week about youth, and the way our current culture affects the way boys and girls view sex, I can’t help but recall several painful experiences my children have revealed to me. There is this assumption out there that guys are like unstable chemicals always on the verge of blowing up if he is stimulated visually in one way or the other.
.
Several months ago my son told me about the incredibly uncomfortable position he was put it when he had to explain to a girl why he didn’t want to make out with her. She was so distraught after he stopped her advances, that it finally took telling her that he was a virgin to calm her down. He felt violated that he needed to reveal something so personal to a virtual stranger to repair her battered ego. She was incredulous that there are guys who actually think sex is worth waiting for. Something similar happened at senior prom a couple of years before that. Last month he was grabbed by a gay man with an aggressive come on. His cousins thought it was hilarious. The summer before,when he was out dancing, a woman grabbed his face between her hands and began kissing him aggressively as well.
.
Our sons are growing up in a predatory world like our daughters are. My-son-the-virgin isn’t a prude, and he’s just as apt to admire a girl in a bikini as the next guy, but there’s a world of difference between admiring beautiful men/women and the act of objectifying them.
.
Needless to say, the word “rape” was never used in the conversations we had regarding healthy sexual attitudes.

Posted by s on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 4:38 PM (EST):

I worry about my children being victimized, but also about them being abusers of some kind. I protect them and teach them as best I can and do not berate them the way this mother has admitted to berating her child. Mostly, I just keep my mouth shut and keep my kids close. But I notice - are they naked in the bed together? Are they whispering together? Are they being bullies? or being sneaky? I know that these worries probably come from my own traumatic childhood - it is hard to stay on the side of caution rather than crazy. And what would I do if one of my children was an abuser? Anyway, pray for this woman - I bet she means well.

I sounds to me that the mother has either been raped or close to being raped or there is a rapist in the family and she feels some “rapist gene” has been passed on to her son.
I actually felt not only sorry for the son, but also the mother to live with such views.
No happy thoughts for her sons future? Just the doom and gloom of a probably sex offender?? I can’t imagine being a mother who spends her time dreaming of the sexual crimes her child will commit as an adult- unless of course, he is showing signs ... torturing/killing animals, deviant sexual behavior to others etc.
I think the entire family might be in need of therapy.
God help them.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 3:54 PM (EST):

Interesting that commenters pounced on the reference to circumcision and are now linking the two ideas.

Posted by Melanie on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:39 PM (EST):

Yes, unfortunately Catholic nuns (at least in my generation) used shame to “discourage” sexual behavior. The worst part is that most of us hadn’t even reached puberty when we were lectured about how “dangerous” a man can be and how a girl has to avoid being alone with a man.
.
We learned that men were “only interested in one thing,” and at the same time it was our fault if he “went too far.”

Posted by TRS on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:30 PM (EST):

Oh dear, in the first paragraphs she describes her son as thinking that boys and girls playing and laughing together that they’re going to start kissing!
Where did he learn that? #toomuchTV
I have been in many situations where young men and women - and even middle aged men and women have been talking and laughing and flirting and they never started randomly kissing!
.
That observation alone makes you wonder how he’s been socialized. #creeper

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:18 PM (EST):

What seems odd, also, about the article is the author’s non-capitalization of “god.”
There are plenty of religious references, so I’m puzzled…Is that another way to not use God’s name in vain?
(My friend who’s Orthodox Jewish uses “G-d”.)

Posted by TRS on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:09 PM (EST):

@Bob, at first your comment shocked me - how were you exposed to that?! Then I realized that many “Recovering Catholic” men I’ve encountered spout the same generalizations.
Dear Sweet Merciful God, is this really what Catholic schools were teaching? How was I spared? (I’m in your same age range.)
Or was it the fact that nuns and other women were teaching these concepts that the boys felt attacked and shamed? What the heck?
.
Please enlighten me. If this is why there are no Catholic men for my generation to marry - I have some heads to crack together!!!

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:37 PM (EST):

Bob,
Most Catholic “gift baskets” from the 70’s & 80’s were empty.

Posted by Bob on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:32 PM (EST):

“His idea of sexuality is a big, knotted ball of guilt and fear and shame.”

I’m not sure what religion that mom is, but frankly this sounds like a pretty fair description of a garden variety upbringing for most Catholic girls and boys of my generation (and I’m 40). Heck, I’m still unwrapping the gift basket of wrongheaded crapola my parents, the priests, and the nuns taught me back in the 70s and 80s.

Posted by anna lisa on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:32 PM (EST):

And what’s up with that “it does the same thing” whether it’s rape or consensual?? That’s like saying a violin does the same thing whether it’s being sawed on by a toddler, or plied by a maestro. Good grief.

Posted by anna lisa on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:27 PM (EST):

Oh wow. How sad. One of my boys turns ten in a couple of months. He’s around a lot of college students, the partying, the shirts off etc. Our conversations aren’t *anything* like that! Nor have they been with his four older brothers. I can’t imagine violating the poor little boy’s innocence like that. The only thing that has come up in conversation has been about alcohol consumption. He is growing up in a different world than the first two who didn’t have older siblings or cousins. I think it is always better to teach virtue in terms of the *positive* ramifications that go along with making the right choices—even better if they can *see* those positive ramifications rather than scarey lectures.

Posted by Laura F. on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:16 PM (EST):

Thank you, Corita, for posting that article! It functions well as a companion to Simcha’s. Thank you, Simcha, for posting yet another article that I want to print and scrapbook into a self-guide for how to be a good mother. :)
I’m sure this mother must have some very real grief over some traumatic past incident. Her words seem too angry to not come from her gut. That shame and fear that she is instilling in her child are just the sort of thing that drive so many men to porn; instead of being a man with confidence, grace, and the ability to cultivate a lasting relationship, he might well become that man sitting in front of the computer screen on a porn site, too afraid to have real human contact.
I agree with Elizabeth; I’m so glad that we can pray for him!

Bless you, Mrs. Fisher!! I saw her article and my heart broke, but I couldn’t bring myself to respond… Thank you for doing it!

www.iris-hanlin.com

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:40 PM (EST):

I am also left thinking about this link:
http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2013/09/on-respect-responsibility-and-mrs-halls.html

...on the point that fear of your child’s sexuality can lead you to foster the exact opposite of what you want for that child.

Posted by teesee on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:32 PM (EST):

This woman is doing something quite harmful to her kid, (who knows, maybe stemming from some past trauma and baggage).
Still, I think we do need to do a better job of teaching our male kids how to deal with their friends/acquaintances when they say things that are rapey/denigrating to women. If you have raised your son right, it’s pretty unlikely that he will turn out to be a rapist, but it’s VERY likely he will know at least one person who has some pretty hateful views of women, and it’s important that those men know their views aren’t acceptable. at the same time, it can be tough when you’re growing up to know how to respond to such views in an effective way that doesn’t sound preachy per se.

Posted by joanne on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:30 PM (EST):

One sad long-term result of sexual violence is that sometimes, without even fully being aware that we are doing so, we can pass on unhealthy or inappropriate attitudes about sexuality to our children. When I was a child a girl in my school was told by her mother when she started first grade that if anybody TOUCHED her she should bite, kick, scream, and fight to get away with all her might. When the teacher touched her (in a totally normal way) during class, the girl flipped out because that is what her mother taught her to do. The girl had a difficult childhood - and I’m guessing her mother did, too.

Posted by Elizabeth McDonald on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:29 PM (EST):

It makes me suspect that his mother was raped and that is where her ‘advice’ springs from. And now she is brutalizing his sense of his own sexuality as some kind of revenge against the rapist. Speculating, but suspicious. So sad for this child. So glad I can pray for him.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:28 PM (EST):

Something she doesn’t discuss is how much the conversation about rape came from his lead, his questions…I think this is pretty important: Let topics of real evil flow out of their questions and not because you want them to talk about it NOW, because you are participating in their loss of innocence and it should not be undertaken lightly.

Posted by Kate on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:24 PM (EST):

I do not understand why some parents create such shame in their children, especially this young. I know one woman that verbally castrates her husband in front of her children as well, and it astounds me.

Posted by Steve T. on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:21 PM (EST):

Wait a second! I thought it was only us ignorant Catholics who hammer guilt and fear and shame about sexuality into our kids’ heads. No fair poaching on our turf!

Posted by priest's wife on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:13 PM (EST):

yikes. Shouldn’t she just discuss the inherent value of being HUMAN?- if we respect everyone…then….we won’t….I got nothing

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.